I can’t stand him anymore. He’s a liar – You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him everyday.

Sarkozy and Obama on Netanyahu, November 2011

There are some whowithout too much thinking are listening to foreign advice of the kind that you have displayed like from the prime minister, Netanyahu [“a very bad deal”]. They are not being particularly helpful andI’m not sure what their motives are.

The agreement under discussion would slow crucial elements of the Iran program, make it more transparent and allow time to reach a more comprehensive agreement in the coming year. Should the United States fail to take this historic opportunity, we risk failing to achieve our non-proliferation goal and losing the support of allies and friends while increasing the probability of war.

A limited U.S. strike would have only a temporary effect. Repetitive attacks would be more effective, but civilian fatalities would rise accordingly, and there would be ghastly risks of released radiation. Iranian nationalism would be galvanized into prolonged hatred of the United States, to the political benefit of the ruling regime. Iran, in retaliating, could make life more difficult for U.S. forces in western Afghanistan by activating a new guerrilla front. Tehran could also precipitate explosive violence in Iraq, which in turn could set the entire region on fire, with conflicts spreading through Syria to Lebanon and even Jordan. Although the U.S. Navy should be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, escalating insurance costs for the flow of oil would adversely affect the economies of Europe and Asia. The United States would be widely blamed. Given the recently woeful U.S. performance in the United Nations — where the United States and Israel gained the support of only seven states out of 188 in opposing U.N. membership for Palestine — it is also safe to predict that an unsanctioned U.S. attack on Iran would precipitate worldwide outrage. Might the U.N. General Assembly then condemn the United States? The result would be unprecedented international isolation for an America already deeply embroiled in the region’s protracted turmoil. Congress should also take note that our Middle Eastern and European friends who advocate U.S. military action against Iran are usually quite reticent regarding their readiness to shed their own blood in a new Middle East conflict. To make matters worse, the most immediate beneficiary of ill-considered recourse to war would be Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which would be able to charge Europe almost at will for its oil while gaining a free hand to threaten Georgia and Azerbaijan….Could Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad, have been right when he bluntly said that an attack on Iran is “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”? Fortunately, there is a better, even if not a perfect, option.

I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy.

A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years. And the economic consequences of it are going to be devastating for the average American. High inflation. Instability. Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world scene. Can you name me any significant country that’s going to be in that war together on our side? That’s something no one can afford to ignore.

[Sanctions] work already to an extent that they weaken Iran. They make domestic stability more difficult for the Iranian leadership to maintain. I don’t think they will work in a kind of decisive fashion if our objective is to deprive the Iranians entirely of a nuclear program.We have to be firm and credible about it and we also have to say a conflict is not in our interest because we know if there’s a conflict, we will be hit by the Iranians. Do you want another war in that part of the world? Do you want the price of oil to go up? Do you want our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be threatened? I don’t understand how anyone can seriously argue that this is in the American interest. I don’t want to live with a nuclear Iran. I would like to make it uncomfortable for them to seek it. I would like to promote internal change in Iran — which is more likely if we don’t fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism.

We won’t sit idly by…Appeasement hasn’t worked in the past, and I don’t think it will work in the 21st century. That is why the frustration really is toward the main players within the United Nations Security Council, that’s their responsibility. And they will share also the blame, whatever deal comes out, they are responsible for it

What was achieved last night in Geneva is not an historic agreement, but an historic mistake…Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world. Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability.

1.) The USA and UK overthrew an elected Government in Iran in 1953.
2.) The Shah was selected to rule over Iran by the West.
3.) The Shah never stood for an election.
4.) The Shah was supplied by the USA with weapons.
5.) The US shot down an Iranian Airliner killing all aboard.
6.) Hostages held by Iran were released. None were killed.
7.) The USA favored Saddam Hussain in the Iraq-Iran War, even though Saddam started it.
8.) The Neo-Cons and the Puppet State of Israel have on numerous occasions threatened to bring a War to Iran.
9.) We have a double standard where Israel is allowed to have Nukes (WMD’s) but Iran must undergo a rigorous process of transparency.
10.) Iran is ringed by US Military bases, and carriers.